Bombay High Court
Aggrieved Parents Group Of Students Of … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 11 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7100-DB
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.671 OF 2024
Aggrieved Parents Group of students
of the Fransalian School of Excellence,
Through Anil s/o Janrao Shelokar
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Business
R/o 28, Moreshwar Housing Society,
Tq. And Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee,
Through its Secretary,
Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
6. Fransalian School of Excellence,
Through its Administrator,
Fransalian Technical Institute Campus,
Seven Hills, Garkheda Road,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14652 OF 2023
Fransalian School of Excellence,
Through its Administrator,
Fr. Solomon Sahayraj,
Age 47 years, Occ: Priest & Service
R/o Fransalian Technical Institute Campus,
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(2)
Seven Hills, Gharkheda Road,
Aurangabad. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Fee
Regulatory Committee,
Anglo Language Department,
Near School Tribunal,
Aurangabad.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad.
4. The Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad (Secondary),
Aurangabad.
5. Aggrieved Parents of Fransalian School
of Excellence through its representative
Mr. Anil Shelokar
Age: Major; Occ: Business
R/o: Plot No. 28, Moreshwar Housing
Society, Behind Sarkate's Swarbihar,
Gharkheda, Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner in WP/671/2024 & Respondent No.5 in
WP/14652/2023 : Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Ajinkya
Reddy a/w Mr. Atharva D. Khedkar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.6 in WP/671/2024 & Petitioner in
WP/14652/2023 : Mr. Cedric D. Fernandes
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 11, 2025
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(3)
JUDGMENT :
– (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners in both petitions have impugned a same
judgment and order of respondent no.2 dated 09.11.2023. The
petitioners in Writ Petition No.14652 of 2023 is a school and the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.671 of 2024 are the group of aggrieved
parents.
3. The dispute in nutshell is about the hike in the fees
imposed by the school. The fee hike was agitated by parents. Many
incidents happened including agitation before the school and
education department. The complaint was also lodged. The Deputy
Director of Education had placed the complaint before respondent
no.2 on 12.03.2023. The respective parties were called. The
aggrieved parents group had a grievance that the school/management
cannot hike the fees contrary to the Maharashtra Educational
Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 (‘The 1987 Act’
for short) as well as The Maharashtra Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 (‘The 2011 Act’ for short). Under the
1987 Act, the educational institution in the State cannot accept any
kind of fees other than prescribed. However, the school/management
has collected a huge amount under the garb of development fee
ranging from Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/- from parents at the time of
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(4)
admission. This was every year practice. The school had also issued
the receipts to most of the parents in the name of contribution
towards NFC Pre-primary School, Aurangabad Unit. The
school/management has collected the fees from each students
towards annual function fee without issuing receipt. It was made
compulsorily irrespective of participating their pupils in any activities.
As per the 2011 Act, the school has to form the parent-teacher
association within 30 days of every academic year for communication
amongst the parents and teachers and management. However, the
management did not send the message about the formation of the
Executive Committee of the parent-teacher association during covid-
19 pandemic. The school has made the group of parents of each
standards. They were in existence till the fee hike. No notice about
formation of the Executive Committee was sent. Since the executive
committee of school was not formed by following due process, no
notice as such was ever published. Non-formation of the Executive
Committee as per the rules is one grievance. The another grievance
of group of parents was that the school/management has hiked 40%
to 50% fee structure for the academic year 2023-24. However, it was
not published on the official website of the school. Opposing this
exorbitant hike, the parents peacefully protested before the
management. The management realizing their mistake, published a
notice on 04.02.2023 admitting their mistake and promised to rectify
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(5)
the same within three days. The apology was also sought for. On
06.02.2023, the school/management announced the same revised
exorbitant fee. To protest this, written application was filed. It was
submitted to the Deputy Director of Education. However, he
transferred it to respondent no.2. The notice of hearing was issued
and it was scheduled on 24.03.2023. On 24.03.2024, the group of
aggrieved parents submitted a detail appeal under the signatures of
the aggrieved parents in appropriate format along with the list of
parents who will represent the matter before the DFRC on behalf of
more than 350 aggrieved parents.
4. The school/management has raised the objection before
respondent no.2, the objection of the maintainability of the complaint
was also raised on the ground that the name of the parents shown in
the list were not the parents of the students of the school. The
document was manipulated as some of the signatures were forged.
The committee has decided the objection of maintainability on
05.04.2023 and rejected the objection. The school/management had
impugned the said order before the High Court vide Writ Petition
No.4747 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to
the Committee/respondent no.2 to scrutinize carefully the
identities/signatures of the aggrieved parents and verify the same
deciding the complaint addressed to the committee. The committee
had scrutinized and verified the identities and signatures of the
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(6)
parents in meetings dated 17.07.2023, 25.07.2023 nad 01.08.2023
and 07.08.2023. It was further the defence of the
school/management that the committee on the basis of the complaint
of few parents initiated proceeding against the management is illegal.
The complaint dated 06.02.2023 does not disclose the fees collected
for previous academic year. The Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar without making any inquiry forwarded
the complaint to respondent no.2 which in turn was registered as
appeal, was illegal. Neither the Deputy Director of Education nor the
Committee verified the names appearing in the complaint dated
06.02.2023 nor their signatures. The parents were added later on
without permission of the Committee. Again the management had
challenged the notice dated 13.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 in the High
Court vide Writ Petition No.3774 of 2023. Again the High Court
directed the Committee to consider all the grounds raised by the
school/management. Further the school/management had a case
that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the school could not introduce new
fees structure as per the 2011 Act. The management has the liberty
to determine its own fee structure taking into consideration the fees
needed to generate the school funds to run the school. Hearing the
respective counsels and considering their case, the committee had
framed the following points for determination :
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(7)
(i) Whether the objection of the respondent school in
respect of format of the appeal and strength of group of
aggrieved parents is acceptable ?
(ii) Whether the aggrieved parents prove that without
following procedure contemplated by The Maharashtra
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011 by the
respondent school declared revised fees for the academic year
2023-24 ?
(iii) Are the aggrieved parents entitled for the refund of fees
for the academic year 2023-24 from the school.
5. The Committee had accepted the case of the group of
aggrieved parents. However, once again relegated the authority to
the school/management to consider the provisions of the 2011 Act for
re-fixing the education fees for the academic year 2023. The
aggrieved parents have a serious objection that the Committee should
have determined the fee structure and it must not have been
relegated to the school/management again.
6. After hearing the respective counsels, there appears no
dispute about adjudication admitting the mistake by the school hiking
the fee structure. However, the dispute revolves around the following
points :
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(8)
(i) Was the complaint addressed to the Deputy Director of
Education transmitted to respondent no.2/Committee is an
appeal memo as required under the law ?
(ii) Was the appeal maintainable for want of requisite number
of parents ?
(iii) Whether the group of parents were recognized as per the
2011 Act and authorized to prefer the appeal ?
(iv) Whether the format of appeal and strength of group of
aggrieved parents is mandatory ?
(v) Can Committee determine the fee structure under the
2011 Act instead of relegating it to the school/management.
7. The learned senior counsel for the group of aggrieved
parents has referred to various documents placed on record. He has
referred to the receipts accepting the huge amount from the parents
and argued that it is a capitation fee which is against the provisions of
law. He referred to the complaint addressed to the Education Officer
about the hike in the fee. He addressed a letter to the Education
Officer to intimate all the concerned to remain present for hearing.
He would submit that the reduction in the hike was asked from 2018
to 2024. He also referred to the letter dated 13.03.2023 addressed to
the Headmaster of the school asking explanation, why the meeting of
the parents was not held and further directed to hold the meeting of
the parents. He has referred to Section 6, Section 10 (6)(7), Section
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(9)
2(r) of the 2011 Act and argued that prima facie, there was no error
in presenting the complaint and converting it into appeal. He also
argued that thereafter, the appeal was preferred in a prescribed
format. The parents-teacher association meeting was held on
27.05.2022. However, in the said meeting, there was no decision
about hike in fee except new format fee structure. He supported the
impugned judgment and order partly, however, the claim that the
order relegating the power to the school again to decide the fee
structure is erroneous. He relied on the case of Euro School
Education Trust and Others Vs. Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee,
Pune and Others, MANU/MH/1622/2017.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the school has vehemently
argued that the Committee has apparently erred in law in not
considering the issue of tenability. The petitioners before it were not
the persons authorized and the legally constituted parents association.
He also reiterated that the signatures on the complaint were repeated.
Hence, it is forged with a view to show the requisite number of
parents to constitute the association. He referred to Section 6 (5b) of
2011 Act. To falsify the claim of the aggrieved parents group, he has
referred to the affidavit of one of the parents contending that her
signatures were forged. The total strength as per the parents was
956. Considering the strength, the complainants were less than 25%.
Only 80 parents came forward to verify the signatures. Even though
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(10)
the Committee did not pay heed to these facts. The parents do not
dispute the hike. Their grievance is about the parents-teacher
association. The sole witness of aggrieved parents admitted that he
did not file the documents showing the hike. In the absence of any
document, the Committee has erroneously accepted that there was an
unauthorized and illegal hike. It was disputed that the hike was not
45% to 50%. However, the hike was as permissible in law. The
parents were agreeable to pay the fees subject to the condition that
the school administration and the management should constitute
parent-teacher association and its Executive Committee and to get the
fees approved from them. He would submit that the impugned order
of the Committee is prima facie illegal and in violation of law. To
support his contention, he relied on the case of Union of India and
Others Vs. Mahendra Singh, of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.4807 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019). He
prayed to allow its writ petition and quash and set aside the
impugned order.
9. The petitioners grievance is that on 04.02.2023, the
contesting respondent/management has surprisingly announced 45%
to 50% hike in the fees of the last academic year. The increased fee
structure was not published on the official website of the school.
Therefore, they moved an application to the Deputy Director of
Education on 06.02.2023. There was a serious fight between the
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(11)
parents and the management resulting into the agitation. The
contesting respondent has raised the objection that the complaint to
the Deputy Director of Education dated 06.02.2023 could not be
considered as an appeal. The Deputy Director of Education without
making inquiry forwarded the copy of the complaint to the Committee
which was registered as an appeal. The appeal was not in the format
and the requisite numbers of aggrieved parents group was the persons
aggrieved.
10. The procedure has been laid down in sub-clause 5 of
Section 6 of the 2011 Act. The appeal by the parents should have
been preferred along with the duly signed form by each aggrieved
parents authorizing the filing of such appeal. The complaint
addressed to the Deputy Director of Education was also not the
appeal in fact as provided under the said rule. The said rule provides
for the appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee about
hiking the fees. Herein the case, the petitioner had a case that
suddenly, the management hiked the fees. There was no parents-
teacher association. Therefore, the management at its own in
violation of Section 6 of the 2011 Act cannot increase the exorbitant
fees.
11. Section 6 of the 2011 Act speaks of the regulation of fees
in private unaided schools and permanently unaided schools. The
respondents have a case that their school is unaided school.
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(12)
Therefore, the management has a exclusive right to increase the fees.
Sub-section 1A of Section 6 is about the right of the management to
choose to declare the standard-wise fee structure for all standards at
the time of admission to the students. If the fee structure is declared
for first part, then fee structure for remaining part shall be declared at
least before one year of commencement of that academic year. The
first part comprises of standards first to fifth and second part
comprising of sixth to tenth standards. Such declaration to be made
known to the parents.
12. Sub-section 1B of Section 6 further provides that the
management of private unaided schools or permanently unaided
schools who does not choose to declare the fee structure as per sub-
section 1A, shall be eligible to propose the fee in the school which
shall not be more than previous academic year fee plus an amount of
fifteen percent of the said fee. However, such schools may increase
the fee after two years from the date the fee approved by the
Executive Committee or Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee as the
case may be. The management has also the power to increase the fee
as mentioned in sub-section (1A) or propose the fee higher than the
rate as provided under sub-section (1B) or before two years as
provided in the proviso to sub-section (1B), in unforeseen events,
with the approval of 76 per cent of parents or approval of the
Executive Committee by furnishing reasons or circumstances thereof.
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(13)
13. The provisions are clear that the management of the
private unaided schools and permanently unaided schools are
competent to propose the fees in such schools. However, such fee
structure should be proposed in first and second parts and if no such
fee structure is proposed to be declared, the fees shall not be
increased more than 15%. For increasing fee structure, there must be
a structure declared by the management and accepted by the parents.
Hike in the fee structure depends on various aspects including
inflation and up-gradation of the standards of the schools. However,
where the management wishes to increase the fee after declaring the
fee structure more than the fee structure declared or not in
unforeseen events, however, the approval of 76% of the parents or
Executive Committee by furnishing reasons or circumstances is
essential.
14. The petitioner has a case that suddenly, the fee was hiked
without following due procedure of law. Therefore, they moved a
representation to the Deputy Director of Education, who in turn has
sent it to the Committee. Sub-section 5 of Section 6 provides for the
appeal either by the management or by the parents against the
decision of the Executive Committee. Nothing is placed on record
that the Executive Committee had taken a decision to increase the
fees and made known to parents. For want of any such specific
material, the objection of the management that appeal is not in
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(14)
proper format would not sustain. Considering the number of parents
signed the complaint with the number of students disclose, there
appears no scope to believe that they were less than 25% of the
students affected. Prima facie, they were the group of aggrieved
parents.
15. The 2011 Act regulates the fees charged by the school
run by the private management or Government. The said Act also
defines the term ‘fee’ with different heads. However, it does not
include the capitation fee. The petitioners have serious objection that
the management has collected a huge amount from the parents under
the head of contribution which was not the part of the fee as defined
in the Act. These are the illegalities. The school/management has no
explanation to that effect. Since the Regulation of Fee Act is in force,
the management has no absolute right to charge the fees as per their
whims and desire. To regulate the fees, the Act provides for the
constitution of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee which has
direct control over the fee to be charged by the management for the
education.
16. Section 10 of the 2011 Act provides for the powers and
functions of Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. It has the power to
adjudicate the dispute between the school/management and the
Parent-Teacher Association regarding fee to be charged by the
school/management from the students. It is a complete code to
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(15)
examine the grievances of the respective parties. The Committee has
powers to regulate its own procedure, for the discharge of its
functions and have all powers of a Civil Court as is under the Code of
Civil Procedure. The Regulatory Committee has also the power to
grant interim stay to the fee determined by the school/management.
Sub-section (6) of Section 10 provides that the Divisional Fee
Regulatory Committee shall on determining the fee leviable by a
private school, communicate its decision to the parties concerned and
has to indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.
Its order is binding on the private school for two academic years. In
an exceptional circumstance, it has also the power to review its order
passed under the said Act.
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised the
serious objection that the Regulatory Committee should have
determine the fees pursuant to the exorbitant increase in the fees.
Relevant material was available before the Committee. However, an
illegality has been committed authorizing the school/management
once again to refix the educational fees for the academic year 2023-
24. Obviously, the counsel for the contesting respondent has serious
objection about it.
18. As discussed above, sub-section (6) of Section 10
authorize the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee to determine the
fee levied by the private school wherever there is dispute between the
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(16)
school/management and the parents regarding the fee to be charged
by the school/management from the students. The record also does
not reveal that the parent-teacher association as required under the
said Act was functioning at the relevant time. In such circumstances,
the Committee was to determine the fee.
19. Reading the relevant provisions of law, we are of the
opinion that the Committee has erred in authorizing the
school/management once again to refix the educational fees for the
academic year 2023. The Regulatory Committee had the power of
discovering and production of documents and the respective evidence
on affidavit. If such vast powers are there, the Committee should
have exercised its powers to resolve the dispute which otherwise
could not be decided by the parents and the management of the
school. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order of the Committee
directing the respondent/management of the school to refix the
educational fees for the academic year 2023-24, is against the law.
20. So far as the appreciation of evidence of the parent’s
evidence is concerned, we consider it that it would not affect the
rights of the aggrieved persons. By way of orders of this Court, the
veracity of the signatures of the parents on the complaint dated
06.02.2023 was tested. Few of the persons came there and they were
found to be genuine. If the school/management has a doubt about
signatures of the parents, they should have name it specifically before
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(17)
the Committee to verify the genuineness of the signatures. So far as
the double signatures of the common parents are concerned, the
possibility of having children more than one in the school of a single
parent cannot be ruled out.
21. After examining the record, we are satisfied that the rules
regulating the fees has not been properly implemented. Sufficient
material to determine the dispute was available before the
Committee. Hence, we deem it fit to relegate the matter to the
Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee for determining the fees for the
academic year 2023, by granting a fresh opportunity to both sides on
examining necessary factors as provided under Section 9 of the 2011
Act.
22. In view of the above, we allow both these petitions partly.
23. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set
aside.
24. The matter is relegated to the Divisional Fee Regulatory
Committee for deciding the issued involved in the matter afresh and
determine the fee to be levied by the respondent/management in
view of the 2011 Act.
25. Both parties are directed to appear before the Divisional
Fee Regulatory Committee on 01.04.2025.
26. An endeavour shall be made by the Divisional Fee
Regulatory Committee to determine the fees within two months
wp-671-2024 judgment.odt
(18)
thereafter, till then, the management should not force the parents to
pay the fees as increased by the school/management.
27. Rule is made partly absolute.
28. No order as to costs.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//